Gaytan

Following the district court’s dismissal of this case with prejudice during the course of the trial, on account of a Brady violation, we reversed and remanded. We left open the question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred further prosecution. The district court held that it did and dismissed the indictment once again. We must now determine whether the district court erred in dismissing the case a second time.

BACKGROUND

Following a federal grand jury indictment of Aníbal Gaytan, Jesus Portillo and Roman Munguia-Meza 1 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), all three defendants filed initial motions for government disclosure of exculpatory information regarding confidential informants pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In its written response, the government asserted that it was free to withhold this information if it believed that the informants needed to be protected. Furthermore, it stated that it was the defendants’ burden to show that the information was relevant to their defense. Moreover, the government stated that it “ha[d] already gone beyond that [which…